Planned Parenthood Celebration Jolted by Abortion Survivor [Colorado]

CatholicEducation.org ^ | May, 2006 | Ted Harvey

[Locomotive Breath]

If I break the law in order to be true to my faith then I expect and will submit to whatever penalty the civil authorities choose to impose. But I think your hypothetical is far afield from the original discussion.

In Harvey's case, although he did not break the law, he should not be surprised if he's never again recognized to speak. I hope his one moment of causing an agitation was worth it.

[Locomotive Breath]

He asked to speak to address a certain topic knowing in his heart that he intended to do something else.

[Locomotive Breath]

Are you proposing that people of faith begin acting like people of nonfaith in order to "win". All will be adjudicated in the hereafter.

[ducdriver]

Keep on pushing, Ted! Bravo! Bravissimo!

[Locomotive Breath]

You have the sequence of events out of order. The congrats were for overcoming the CP before Harvey's true agenda became known.

[ducdriver]

"At what age can a human live outside the womb without help from an older human?"

These days, it seems to be around 30 or later. And of course, nobody could survive without the help of others all through life.

[FJ290]

You have the sequence of events out of order. The congrats were for overcoming the CP before Harvey's true agenda became known.

Oops! You are correct. I had read the article earlier in the day and should have reread the whole thing again. I remembered from reading it earlier that she had congratulated the young lady and keyed in on the wrong sequence of events in my comments. I apologize.

Still, the only ones that were upset were the Democrats. I didn't see that the Republicans raised a stink about it.

[FJ290]

In Harvey's case, although he did not break the law, he should not be surprised if he's never again recognized to speak. I hope his one moment of causing an agitation was worth it.

May I ask why you are so upset over this? Do you think the Holy Apostles cared one whit if they caused an agitation? Do you think Jesus cared that he stirred up the scribes and Pharisees?

If Harvey's "one moment of agitation" causes a person to not get an abortion or changes the mind of one person who is pro-abortion, then yes, I would say it was worth it.

[MrEdd]

ping

[MrEdd]

"fetus" is a Latin term - the closest English translation of which is "toddler" it refers to a small child who is not yet safe to leave untended, and was used as a term of endearment. So - if we return two the original meaning it is a child up to age two or three - because the word already has that meaning.

If I or anyone else tries to redefine it at this late date is just as valid (and silly) as saying bluegill are not fish because they swim in fresh water and I want fish to only refer to salt water vertebrates. My attempt to narrowly redefine the word fish in the face of centuries of use would be ludicrous.

[BagCamAddict]

That's not what I was defining. I didn't say "live without help from an older human." I said "live." Period.

So I'm not going to argue a point I wasn't making.

[BagCamAddict]

Of course there are whacko baby killers. I never said there weren't.

I'm not going to debate you about my own personal definition. My, Own, Personal... definition.

[BagCamAddict]

I'm not going to answer your first question because it's not relevant to what I wrote.

And to your statement: It doesn't make it NOT so either.

You said it yourself, it's a human life that is formING, not formED.

And I didn't say it wasn't HUMAN. I said it couldn't survive outside the body.

(I really really really wish that both extremes on this issue, both the far RIGHT pro-Life and the far LEFT pro-Choice would be able to read and comprehend what people actually type/say, without extrapolating things that are not typed/said/intended. At least the Gentleman in post #54 was able to ask questions and do so in a way that actually allows me to answer and continue the dialogue... because only through dialogue can we understand each other.)

[BagCamAddict]

Your first question:

I don't know, because I don't follow the current medical abilities.

Obviously a "pre-birth human"** can't live outside the womb when it's 2 months old (7-months pre-birth).... But a 7.5-month "pre-birth human" can often live outside the womb. I believe I've heard of babies being born 4 months premature and surviving. So that means they can survive at 5-months gestation.

But at what point, between 2-months and 5-months of gestation, babies can live outside the womb, I don't know.

(** I'm calling it a "pre-birth human" because later posts responding to mine challenged my use of the word "fetus" -- even though I had CLEARLY used quotations around the word, and even though I had CLEARLY stated what definition I was using in MY sentence.)

Your second question:

Well, I disagree with your premise that you can jump from my statement to your statement. But like you said, you're not looking to pick a fight. Neither am I. So let me try to be as clear as I can without confusing things even more:

I made a statement about one specific thing: my PERSONAL definition of the difference between a "fetus" and a "baby". My definition has nothing to do with the subsequent death, at any point in time, of that baby. We all die at some point, and that doesn't mean we were never babies. Right?

My definition -- I reiterate, MY definition -- was WHETHER or not a baby COULD live outside the womb, not IF it lives, or for how long. So if a baby dies 5 minutes after being born, then a baby died, not a "fetus." It may have died of a heart defect, but that doesn't make it any less of a baby. That same baby might just as well have lived for 2 years before that heart defect killed it. Or 20 years. Or 80 years. The point is it could have lived outside the womb (if it had been healthy in the first place).

I hope I've made sense here, but if not, tell me where I don't make sense and I'll try it again.

[BagCamAddict]

Again, I wish people could read what I wrote, not what you wish I had written. I did not write anything about the definition of Humanity or Human. So I won't debate anything about your entire first paragraph, because you are putting words in my mouth that I did not say.

And since the rest of your post was based on your first paragraph, I have no response to you. If you care to comment on what I actually DID say, then I will respond to that.

[beezdotcom]

(And to reduce the number of people who will ask me at what point a "fetus" becomes a "baby", I'll tell you my personal definition: The point at which the baby can survive outside the womb.)

That point gets pushed further and further back every year. We've now had premature babies born at 20 weeks which have survived. How much further back can we push that before you say, "naw, doesn't matter, not a baby"?

[BagCamAddict]

As I thought I made perfectly clear, by my use of quotations around the words, I was using a specific definition for that word, MY PERSONAL definition.

It's not relevant what the root of the word is. I could have just as easily used "$t#K*T" in my sentence, because I provided the definition for the word I had framed in quotation marks.

And I was not trying to redefine the word. Did I say that I was? Clearly not. So again, I wish people on this topic could read, hear, understand, and reply to, what is ACTUALLY SAID, not what they wish the person had said or hoped they might have intended to say, just to fan the flames of this debate even further. I do not understand why people can't simply have dialogue on this topic.

[beezdotcom]

Obviously a "pre-birth human"** can't live outside the womb when it's 2 months old (7-months pre-birth)..

Not yet. Certainly not with current technology. Do you predict science will never make this possible? If you think it might someday be possible, will your definition of baby have to change, in order to exclude these extreme cases?

[BagCamAddict]

Well... that gets into a completely different, and HUGE, topic... of whether or not we should be intervening in such drastic ways for (babies) that weren't meant to survive in the first place.

I mean, the primary reason cited by pro-Life people is religious/God. So one could ask, "If God didn't want that baby to survive, who are we to go to such drastic means to keep it alive."

Then you can also argue that God gave us the technology to be able to do so...

And of course that is a HUGE HUGE topic, arguing whether ANY medical intervention, of any kind, should ever be done, on any human, at any time. And whether or not modern medical miracles and the amazing breakthroughs in medical technology are all part of God's plan, and He wouldn't have given us that technology if He didn't want us to use to save every single life, etc.

So as I said, it's a huge can of worms to start talking about whether or not we should even be going to the extreme measures necessary to keep a 20-week baby alive outside the womb.

But of course all of that is completely off topic for this thread, and for my original post. :-)

[Delphinium]

But I think your hypothetical is far afield from the original discussion.

I don't think so, abortion is very much as bad as the two examples I asked you about.

What would you do, or how far would you go as a "Christian" for the cause of stopping precious unborn children from being murdered?